Key Takeaways:
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Groff v. DeJoy has curtailed an employer’s ability to demonstrate an “undue hardship” when assessing an employee’s request for a religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges [of] employment, because of such individual’s … religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 20003-2(a)(1). As the Equal Employment Opportunity’s (EEOC) interpretative regulations explain, Title VII obligates employers “to make reasonable accommodations to the religious needs of employees” whenever doing so would not create “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1 (1968).
For the past 45 years, courts throughout the country have interpreted the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison to mean that an “undue hardship” would be found, i.e., an employer need not grant the requested religious accommodation if the proposed accommodation would involve more than a de minimis cost or inconvenience to the employer. However, the Supreme Court in Groff clarified what Title VII’s “undue hardship” standard should be when assessing religious accommodation requests. Specifically, the Groff Court confirmed that Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” This is a significantly higher burden than the courts previously required when relying upon the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Hardison.
The Supreme Court explained that when applying the undue burden test in the religious accommodation context, courts must consider all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impacts in light of the nature, size, and operating costs of the employer. This means that there is no one-size-fits-all approach and that courts will be required to analyze all accommodation requests and denials thereof on a fact-specific, case-by-case basis.
Although the Supreme Court declined to adopt the proposed applicable standards suggested by the parties in the Groff case, i.e., either to incorporate Americans with Disabilities Act case law or opine that the EEOC’s construction of the Hardison standard has been basically correct, the Supreme Court did state that a “good deal of the EEOC’s guidance in this area is sensible and will, in all likelihood, be unaffected by the Court’s clarifying decision.”
The Supreme Court confirmed that what is paramount when undertaking the undue hardship analysis is determining whether such hardship would be “substantial” in the context of an employer’s specific business in a “commonsense” manner. This means that the lower courts will be tasked with the context-specific application of the “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [the employer’s] particular business” standard when determining whether an employee’s religious beliefs must be accommodated.
Additionally, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to clarify what it referred to as “several recurring issues.”
Based on this decision from the Supreme Court and the corresponding media coverage thereof, we anticipate that employers will begin to receive an influx of requests for religious accommodations. As such, we encourage you to contact BakerHostetler’s employment attorneys with any questions you may have regarding the effects of the Groff decision and with respect to any specific religious accommodation requests you may receive. Our Labor and Employment Practice Group is ready to assist you in navigating the current religious accommodation standard and ensuring compliance with federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws.
